Driver to drive?

BobS · Nov 24, 2009

On Nov 23, 3:15 pm, George Herold <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 23, 1:08 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler.
Fill it about 3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
from any ice contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 |- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll play Jim,

Here's the Greenland ice sheet.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

2.85 X10^6 km^3. If it all melts I calculate about 7.5m of sea level
rise.
(radius of earth is about 6.37 X 10^3 km.)
and here's the Antarctichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
30 X10^6 km^3. Of course some of that is in the ocean already. Not
sure how much... but call it half and you've still got 15 X10^6 km^3.
Call if five times what is on Greenland and that gives an additional
37.5 m of rise... Grand total 45m.

George H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any sea level change would not be uniform, the earth rotates you
know. Or is it the sun that moves?

Geoff · Nov 24, 2009

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.

I did not ignore the fact. I accounted for it quite clearly. Come up
with precise volumes of ice and precise surface areas of the seas and
do the math. Show how X m^3 of ice are spread across Y m^2 of ocean
and tell us how many meters of rise to expect. Estimates range from 60
centimeters to 60 meters, that's a hell of a lot of margin of error.

Jim Thompson · Nov 24, 2009

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:52:33 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.

I did not ignore the fact. I accounted for it quite clearly. Come up
with precise volumes of ice and precise surface areas of the seas and
do the math. Show how X m^3 of ice are spread across Y m^2 of ocean
and tell us how many meters of rise to expect. Estimates range from 60
centimeters to 60 meters, that's a hell of a lot of margin of error.

Bill Sloman · Nov 24, 2009

On Nov 23, 8:13 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about 3/4
full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the container
on a table and mark the side of it where the water level appears. Make
sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away from any ice
contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say? What
is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water in
the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans? When
that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of the
oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions Al
Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)

Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.
* Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...

Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no
Slowman "calculations" ;-)

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?

The Arctic might be, if you excluded Greenland

Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".

It has been done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Then let's talk

Why would one want to talk to a nitwit who couldn't find the data on
the web?

If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
give a wet fart ?

Thats a lot of real estate. A few banks might get upset - quite of few
of their mortgages would become submarine-prime. But since that much
sea level rise would probably swamp London, the whole of the
Netherlands and most of Belgium, not to mention Bangladesh, New York
City and Boston probably wouldn't get all that much attention.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Nov 24, 2009

On Nov 24, 1:20 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

As anticipated... an evasion.

GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making
the national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked
and exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)

Jim joins Ravinghorde as gullible consumer of daft conspiracy
theories.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Nov 24, 2009

On Nov 23, 11:04 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
messagenews:27rlg51de9o3l2avr05vm77en7fot7pp7v@4ax.com...

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:44:35 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:11 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about
3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
from any ice contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)

Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_. *
Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...

Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no Slowman
"calculations" ;-)

Prove to me that you're not a liar or a credulous boob, first ;-), ;-)
and again ;-).

What is it about conservatives that you advance the most ridiculous
arguments then start loudly insisting that they be disproven by the most
circuitous methods possible?

No. You introduced the thread to this group, _you_ prove it or you back
down. Or consider your status as (at best) a credulous dupe to be proven.

Start with Greenland and the Antarctic, and probably half of Canada and
Siberia.

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without me
having to pull out your finger nails ?

Sure.

But _I_ assume you'll agree that you have a vested financial interest in
living high on the hog until you die of old age, long before any long-
term problems with current energy policies show up?

Just so we can gauge any of your responses?

Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".

As I pointed out, that's your job.

Then let's talk

If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
give a wet fart ?

Ah. So if a mountain lion only eats your neighbors you don't give a fat
rat's ass?

That's good to know, Jim.

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

For the past couple of days its been in the UK news that hackers have broken
into the servers at a science institute that's funded on the global warming
meal ticket.

Much of the info has been posted on the web and apparently its so revealing
that no one's taking much notice of the banking and other personal details
liberated at the same time.

Lunatic conspiracy theorists are getting excited about the
"revelations".
As far as I can see the only relevation involved is that some senior
scientist feel free to describe some of their colleagues as nitwits in
private e-mails to people they trust.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Michael A. Terrell · Nov 24, 2009

Tim Wescott wrote:

Ah. So if a mountain lion only eats your neighbors you don't give a fat
rat's ass?

That depends on the neighbor. No reason the lion should suffer.

--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

mpm · Nov 24, 2009

On Nov 23, 8:31 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:26:52 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:20:15 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

As anticipated... an evasion.

GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making the
national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked and
exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Changing the subject is also an evasion. You were discussing an
'experiment' with ice, water, and a bunch of false premises. If you
wanted to make the point that AGW isn't real because some dipshits were
faking their science, then that's the point you would have made. Instead
you were forwarding someone's faked science and standing behind it right
up until the moment that you got pushed a bit hard. Then you fall on the
ground kicking and screaming like a two year old.

If you really thing that faked science is so f***ing bad, why were _you_
doing it? And if you want to be seen as smart, why were you doing so
_poorly_? All you've done is show that you're OK with faked science, as
long as it's faked to benefit _you_.

You're an _engineer_ for crying out loud! Yet whenever a subject comes
up that calls for knee-jerk politics you don't think, instead your legs
start spasming. What's with that? It's just a good thing for your
clients that chip design has nothing to do with politics.

Show me the volume of ice you claim is going to melt and flood the
world. Otherwise STFU. Go build an ark or something. What an
annoying bastard.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 |- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

SMOS will give us some answers.
It launched a few weeks ago from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.

You'd like the instrument. - A very complicated L-band
interferometer. Weird orbit too.
A friend of mine is a scientist on the project.

Personally, I think we'll screw up the planet in other ways long
before global warming does us in.

Martin Brown · Nov 24, 2009

Geoff wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.

I did not ignore the fact. I accounted for it quite clearly. Come up
with precise volumes of ice and precise surface areas of the seas and
do the math. Show how X m^3 of ice are spread across Y m^2 of ocean
and tell us how many meters of rise to expect. Estimates range from 60
centimeters to 60 meters, that's a hell of a lot of margin of error.

This is basic high school algebra - do your own homework.

The numbers are clear enough from a combination of remote sensing and
direct bore hole surveys. Roughly 2km thick ice over most of Antarctica
except for a few dry bits where there is arid dry desert. A similar
chunk of deep ice but not as big sits on Greenlands interior.

If all the ice on the planet were to melt then you get a 60-70m sea
rise. This is an incredibly unlikely scenario. Although working it out
has been a school geography excercise for a very long time.

The most likely sea level rise over the next century is predicted to be
somewhere in the range of 0.4m (IPCC) to 1m+-0.3m based on more recent
observational data about how the ice sheets are behaving. eg.

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=293

Most of it coming from expansion. The additional contribution from ice
melting is thought to account for roughly 30% of the observed rise.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown · Nov 24, 2009

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:20:15 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]
As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)
As anticipated... an evasion.
GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making the
national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked and
exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Changing the subject is also an evasion. You were discussing an
'experiment' with ice, water, and a bunch of false premises.

He a pathological Neocon liar. You are wasting your time. Dittoheads
already know that we cannot alter the climate no matter what we do. And
they will deny all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter how much
scientific evidence is produced their views are immutable.

If you

wanted to make the point that AGW isn't real because some dipshits were
faking their science, then that's the point you would have made. Instead
you were forwarding someone's faked science and standing behind it right
up until the moment that you got pushed a bit hard. Then you fall on the
ground kicking and screaming like a two year old.

It is rather funny that the Dittoheads try to fake a science experiment
but cannot even get a really simple one correct. The experiment he
suggested was fundamentally flawed at the outset. Failure to notice that
the sea is *saltwater* is at best utterly incompetent and at worst
deliberate and malicious falsehood. I am inclined to believe the latter.

If you really thing that faked science is so f***ing bad, why were _you_
doing it? And if you want to be seen as smart, why were you doing so
_poorly_? All you've done is show that you're OK with faked science, as
long as it's faked to benefit _you_.

He is a pathological LIAR. That is all that the Dittoheads are good for.

You're an _engineer_ for crying out loud! Yet whenever a subject comes
up that calls for knee-jerk politics you don't think, instead your legs
start spasming. What's with that? It's just a good thing for your
clients that chip design has nothing to do with politics.

Maybe he only uses right turns in his layouts...

Regards,
Martin Brown

Ouroboros Rex · Nov 24, 2009

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

As anticipated... an evasion.

GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making
the national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked
and exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)

It's interesting, isn't it, that even with stolen personal emails, no one
has been able to find any scientific wrongdoing? lol

Ouroboros Rex · Nov 24, 2009

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:26:52 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:20:15 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott
tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

As anticipated... an evasion.

GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making
the national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked
and exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Changing the subject is also an evasion. You were discussing an
'experiment' with ice, water, and a bunch of false premises. If you
wanted to make the point that AGW isn't real because some dipshits
were faking their science, then that's the point you would have
made. Instead you were forwarding someone's faked science and
standing behind it right up until the moment that you got pushed a
bit hard. Then you fall on the ground kicking and screaming like a
two year old.

If you really thing that faked science is so f***ing bad, why were
_you_ doing it? And if you want to be seen as smart, why were you
doing so _poorly_? All you've done is show that you're OK with
faked science, as long as it's faked to benefit _you_.

You're an _engineer_ for crying out loud! Yet whenever a subject
comes up that calls for knee-jerk politics you don't think, instead
your legs start spasming. What's with that? It's just a good thing
for your clients that chip design has nothing to do with politics.

Show me the volume of ice you claim is going to melt and flood the
world.

Show us the values of all the resistors in the world before you go using
that Ohm's law! lol

Proof abounds - republicans are betas.

Ouroboros Rex · Nov 24, 2009

Geoff wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.

I did not ignore the fact. I accounted for it quite clearly. Come up
with precise volumes of ice and precise surface areas of the seas and
do the math. Show how X m^3 of ice are spread across Y m^2 of ocean
and tell us how many meters of rise to expect. Estimates range from 60
centimeters to 60 meters, that's a hell of a lot of margin of error.

No, they don't. lol

karina garcia · Nov 24, 2009

On Nov 24, 4:37 am, sanchuntrade <sanchuntr...@yahoo.cn> wrote:

For more information,please contact Sophie,Yahoo:
globaltrader2...@yahoo.com.cn

Minimum order is one,factory price also!Paypal payment free
shipping,ship time will take 4-7 working days.

Gucci jewelry wholesale,925 silver tiffany,Tiffany supplier,tiffany
factory,tiffany wholesaler.

Wholesale Tiffany Jewelry,wholesale Gucci jewelry,replicas Tiffany GCO
Jewelry,Dior jewelery replicas,Coach Replicas
jewelry. www.ebaychinaonline.com

Tiffany jewellery,inspired Gucci jewelry,bvlgari jewelry,Tiffany box,
18KG tiffany,sterling silver
tiffany. www.ebaychinaonline.com

New tiffany,fashion jewelries,replica jewelry,replica wholesale mirror
image jewelry,quality
jewelry. www.ebaychinaonline.com

Replica wholesale,wholesale replica gemstone,semi precious stones,925
sterling silver,solid silver necklace,ring,bracelet,pendant,hand
chain,earring,stud dangle earring,cuff and bangle,
brooch jewelry tiffany. www.ebaychinaonline.com

Jewelry replica tiffany,jewelry store,inspired jewelry tiffany,jewelry
tiffany watch,discount jewelry tiffany,fake jewelry tiffany,jewelry
tiffany wholesale,jewelry knockoff tiffany,
jewelry silver tiffany,cheap jewelry tiffany. www.ebaychinaonline.com

Tiffany Gco jewelry watch,jewelry style tiffany GCO,tiffany Gco
jewelry replica,imitation jewelry tiffany GCO,authentic jewelry
tiffany GCO,tiffany GCO jewelry knockoff.
Faux jewelry tiffany,authentic jewelry tiffany,box jewelry
tiffany,ebay jewelry tiffany,
jewelry like tiffany,jewelry silver sterling tiffany,discount jewelry
tiffany,jewelry sale
tiffany. www.ebaychinaonline.com

Jewelry return LV,jewelry ring LV,copy jewelry LV,jewelry man
LV,jewelry necklace LV,antique jewelry LV,jewelry replica LV
wholesale,jewelry knockoffs LV.

Jewelry site ED hardy web,jewelry outlet ED hardy,inspired jewelry
silver ED hardy,discount jewelry ED hardy,jewelry set ED hardy,buy
jewelry online ED hardy.

history jewelry juicy,jewelry store juicy,imitation jewelry
juicy,jewelry replica,replica juicy,inspired jewelry juicy,jewelry
sale juicy,alike jewelry look juicy.

Jewelry necklace D&G watch,bracelet jewelry D&G watch,D&G jewelry
wholesale,catalog jewelry
D&G,jewelry. www.ebaychinaonline.com

new D&G york,jewelry productpage style D&G,replica D&G,gold jewelry
D&G,com jewelry D&G.
Diamond jewelry bvlgri,39 jewelry bvlgri,jewelry real bvlgri,jewelry
reproduction bvlgri,
jewelry sterling. www.ebaychinaonline.com

bvlgri,fake jewelry spot bvlgri,jewelry location bvlgri,jewelry bvlgri
uk,bracelet jewelry bvlgri,jewelry silver style bvlgri,buy jewelry
bvlgri,jewelry bvlgri used,jewelry bvlgri
vintage. www.ebaychinaonline.com

Distributor jewelry manufacturer Links,jewelry style Links,replica
Links,Links replicas wholesale,fake Links
wholesale. www.ebaychinaonline.com

karina you swine flu

Hal Murray · Nov 24, 2009

In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471rr9vohaaaolasvsbl@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> writes:

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?

Is Greenland part of the Artic?

Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
if Greenland melted?

--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

Jim Thompson · Nov 24, 2009

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:

In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471rr9vohaaaolasvsbl@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> writes:

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?

Is Greenland part of the Artic?

Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
if Greenland melted?

TheM · Nov 24, 2009

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:i3cog5t67qbc0ognbgo7ug3mmhs5aj9740@4ax.com...

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:

In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471rr9vohaaaolasvsbl@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> writes:

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?

Is Greenland part of the Artic?

Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
if Greenland melted?

Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.

...Jim Thompson

Don't forget to mention it used to be green in the past, when Vikings
settled it. Surely that wasn't due to industrial CO2?

M

Jim Thompson · Nov 24, 2009

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:37:31 +0100, "TheM" <DontNeedSpam@test.com>
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:i3cog5t67qbc0ognbgo7ug3mmhs5aj9740@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:

In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471rr9vohaaaolasvsbl@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> writes:

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?

Is Greenland part of the Artic?

Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
if Greenland melted?

Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.

...Jim Thompson

Don't forget to mention it used to be green in the past, when Vikings
settled it. Surely that wasn't due to industrial CO2?

M

They used to herd CATTLE there.

Leftist weenies choose to ignore that.

Fox is the only network presently covering the climate change hoax
exposure. Wonder if Obama and the Forty Thugs will rush out and
arrest all us trouble-makers ?

Hal Murray · Nov 25, 2009

In article <i3cog5t67qbc0ognbgo7ug3mmhs5aj9740@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> writes:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:

In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471rr9vohaaaolasvsbl@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> writes:

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?

Is Greenland part of the Artic?

Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
if Greenland melted?

Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.

It's also a reasonably large land mass (even after you
correct for the distortion in typical Mercator projections)
and most of it is covered with very thick ice.

USGS says:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level
rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would
result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1).

Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past
reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level
rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population,
with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in
the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3).

I'm about 100 feet above sea level. I guess I'm safe for a while.

--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

don · Nov 25, 2009

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:37:31 +0100, "TheM" <DontNeedSpam@test.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:i3cog5t67qbc0ognbgo7ug3mmhs5aj9740@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:

In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471rr9vohaaaolasvsbl@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> writes:

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?
Is Greenland part of the Artic?

Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
if Greenland melted?
Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.

...Jim Thompson
Don't forget to mention it used to be green in the past, when Vikings
settled it. Surely that wasn't due to industrial CO2?

M

They used to herd CATTLE there.

The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic
sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from
Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set
out in ships to find the land that was rumoured to be to the northwest.
After settling there, he named the land Grnland ("Greenland") in the
hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.[37][38] Greenland
was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or
Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription
of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not
known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is
indeed very green in the summer and was probably even greener in Erik's
time during the Medieval Warm Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

Driver to drive?

BobS

Guest

Geoff

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

mpm

Guest

Martin Brown

Guest

Martin Brown

Guest

Ouroboros Rex

Guest

Ouroboros Rex

Guest

Ouroboros Rex

Guest

karina garcia

Guest

Hal Murray

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

TheM

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Hal Murray

Guest

don

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor